"Also in development is a focal length reducer for EF lenses, this will be announced with the 20mp EOS M camera"

That is something you hear about more in astronomy. But a 0.8 focal reducer that would turn your 10-22 3.5-4.5 into, say, a 8-18 2.8 - 3.6 would be interesting. A Meade or Celestron focal reducer costs in the neighborhood of $100. Count on the Canon being $300, maybe. Because it is Canon, and because it has the EOS electronic connections.

Let's see -- a .8 reducer would make the 85 1.8 a 68 1.4. But the efl would still be a bit over 100mm because of the crop factor. This sounds intriguing, but will probably not be inexpensive.

A reducer factor of 0.63 would restore EF lenses to their full frame optical values. (0.63 = 1/1.6). I wonder if that's it....

Intresting post. Never read about that before. Is there such a thing for Crop DSLRs? And I wonder how similar tech would work on my 5DIII and the 16-35 2.8 USM II

Fact: Canon is not offering the EOS M for $299. Fact: There is no rebate currently offered for the EOS-M, which means no enforcement of minimum advertised pricing.Fact: B&H offered the camera for $299.Fact: We don't know why B&H made this offer.Fact: Adorama and Amazon are major competitors with B&H.Fact: Adorama and Amazon matched B&H's price.Fact: We don't know why Adorama and Amazon matched B&H's price, but we can speculate it has something to do with the competitive marketplace.Fact: Eventually, the EOS-M will be replaced.

Assuming any relationship between the last fact and all those preceding, without correcting for all of the other variables, is simply sloppy reasoning.

Have you ever investigated "dealer incentives" that car manufacturers offer to their dealers? The price reduction could have come about because Canon let it be known to its retailers that it had a warehouse full of M kits that it was willing to sell to them (the retailers) at a much lower price and B&H, being B&H, was the first retailer to reduce their price in response. Dealers don't typically sell stuff at a loss without good reason, even if their competitors decide to. Even if the M is being replaced, the retailers could simply hold onto their current kits and reduce their prices to the break-even point when the new model appears. Given Canon's pricing history, that break-even point is likely to be well below the price of the new models' kits.

The easiest way to think of what a speedbooster does to your sensor size and focal length is the following:

When you don't use a speedbooster, you constantly multiply your focal lengths by 1.6 to get the "equivalent focal length". With a speedbooster that is no longer necessary.

WITH A SPEEDBOOSTER, YOUR APS-C CAMERA JUST BECAME A FULLFRAME CAMERA, AND ISO IS ACTUALLY TWICE AS HIGH AS WHAT THE CAMERA SAYS

So, when I use a 50mm on my NEX-5N with a speedbooster, set at f/1.4 and with ISO 200, I get an image with the same field of view, depth of field, and exposure, as I'd get with that same 50mm on a 5D3, set at f/1.4 and with ISO 400.There, no more math. It becomes a FF camera, end of story.

You should get an additional 1 1/3 stops of light. If Canon makes it, I imagine they would compensate by making f-stop read accurately... so that the camera would see f/1.8 instead of f/2.8, for example.

Using the booster with the 50 f/1.2 or 85 f/1.2 might prove interesting. The resulting maximum aperture would be something like f/.75. I suspect that the corners would be a bit ragged.

It'll be interesting to see how the 70D technology pans out. It looks like the AF capability is good. If this is applied to a new M class body, and if this new focal length "reducer" comes to fruition, this could be a versatile addition to the kit for someone that's already packing a good amount of EOS glass.

Just picked up the M. Couldn't resist that deal. It came with the newer firmware so I'm thinking maybe Canon pushing out the stock? Anyway. It is a pretty cool little camera that delivers great results. I am quite happy with the image output . I can live with the slower autofocus for what this camera is. The 22mm lens is sharp and contrasty. The touch screen works very good. I have a Fuji X20 that I bought as a carry around camera mainly because of the view finder. I think I might sell it now. Even though the M doesn't have a viewfinder or flash you just can't compare the image quality with the higher end point and shoots. The next M should be a good one. If they manage to get a small flash with a viewfinder and improve the AF it will be a winner. I am happy though with this little guy.

I'm less concerned about the sensor than I am about GPS, WiFi, small pop up flash and a tiltable rear screen. THese are the reasons I didn't jump on the $299 offer. Great price, but without these it no more useful than the G1X I already have.

I don't need a viewfinder. Between parallax and small image size, they are just a hassle. But I would love to use it at waist or chest level with a tilting screen. Doesn't have to swivel.

A sensor bump is nice to have and inevitable, but without the other features, I won't.

The easiest way to think of what a speedbooster does to your sensor size and focal length is the following:

When you don't use a speedbooster, you constantly multiply your focal lengths by 1.6 to get the "equivalent focal length". With a speedbooster that is no longer necessary.

WITH A SPEEDBOOSTER, YOUR APS-C CAMERA JUST BECAME A FULLFRAME CAMERA, AND ISO IS ACTUALLY TWICE AS HIGH AS WHAT THE CAMERA SAYS

So, when I use a 50mm on my NEX-5N with a speedbooster, set at f/1.4 and with ISO 200, I get an image with the same field of view, depth of field, and exposure, as I'd get with that same 50mm on a 5D3, set at f/1.4 and with ISO 400.There, no more math. It becomes a FF camera, end of story.

That's the exact way Nikon did it with its E series DSLR's. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_E_series). Built in 4x telecompressor, with a sensor to match. The tiny sensor started at ISO 50, but the camera instead called it ISO 800 so it could report the lenses aperture and focal length in 35mm units.

I don't know whether Canon will do it that way (which in many ways makes the most sense), or let it report these compressed imaging circles with their brighter f numbers and shorter focal lengths instead.

I'm guessing this whole telecompressor thing is a stepping stone to Canon fitting a FF sensor in an EOS-M sized body. If they believe there's a market for people to mount FF glass on a mirrorless, why not make the body/adapter smaller and optically better by fitting a bigger sensor in leu of the glass - and then native wide angle FF glass can be made to take advantage of the shorter flange distance. If a crop dual pixel sensor is possible, so is a FF version.

By the way, here is an actual test of the FS100 vs the 5D3, one using the Speedbooster and the other using the traditional full-frame sensor. Pretty interesting piece of technology for sure. Most of the benefits of a full-frame camera for less demanding applications (landscape, video, portrait), and you still have an APS-C camera without it for wildlife, sports, etc

I just reran the numbers starting with image circle sizes (43.2mm & 27.3mm) and working from there, and my original calculation of 5/4ths stop is a bit off now, and it is actually pretty damn close to 4/3rds stops (-1.32426072248723) which would be a very convenient factor (except for the goofy 1/6th stops you get when going from a half stop like 1.2, but that really only affects two lenses).

That would make an 85/1.2 convert to a 54(53.7)/.75(.749) that behaves like a an 85/.75 on crop. Yes please

So the focal length is effectively unchanged at 85mm? Even though you're dividing it by sqrt(2) and multiplying it by 1.6 (for crop)?

Sorry, it was late and I didn't explain myself very well.

The numbers work out perfect like that if you use 27.3/43.2 (~0.6319) as the factor for the converter, then the actual APSC crop factor is 43.2/27.3 (~1.5824) on Canon which perfectly reverses the apparent focal length change because they are reciprocals.

That was essentially the factor that was initially speculated by hmmm. I argued .707 made more sense, but really either would work fine.

Once you start putting adapters and reducers on a compact body, it starts to lose appeal to me. I'd rather use my FF.

Beat me to it. While the FL reducer is a nifty "trick" it eliminates the inherent advantage (mainly, size) of a standalone compact mirrorless system. Of the flipside, it probably makes the EOS M an even better backup without taking up much room in the kit bag - as the performance should more closely approximate your FF setup.

My personal preference is that Canon adds more fast primes to the EF-M lineup.

I'm guessing this whole telecompressor thing is a stepping stone to Canon fitting a FF sensor in an EOS-M sized body. If they believe there's a market for people to mount FF glass on a mirrorless, why not make the body/adapter smaller and optically better by fitting a bigger sensor in leu of the glass - and then native wide angle FF glass can be made to take advantage of the shorter flange distance. If a crop dual pixel sensor is possible, so is a FF version.

If your proposed system allowed EF lenses to be mounted at a shorter flange distance, wouldn't it require sensors larger than our FF sensors? Sounds like a challenging and expensive proposition! Not an unwelcome one though.

Logged

A few bodies, some flashes, a tripod here and there, a handful of lenses. Plenty of equipment, a lot of perseverance, but not enough talent (yet).